And this is what startles me. It comes to the point that you would lie to your parents and tell them Internet Explorer doesn't even exist, because you believe Firefox to be the superior browser.
Well, for the moment Firefox IS the superior browser if you look at things like security, standards compliance, etc. Would I lie to my techno-phobic parents and in-laws about the existence of a technology if it meant getting more peace and quiet at night? You're damn skippy....
Why is it wrong for Microsoft to create a monopoly, yet you won't even let them know that Internet Explorer does exist and is an alternative to Firefox as Firefox is an alternative to Internet Explorer.
So, just because Microsoft has created a monopoly, we as consumers are obligated to to adhere to it? The current failings of IE are pretty well known at this point, and MS's lack of action on the browser front pretty much begs for a better alternative.
Even the most hardcore Linux users would think a world with only one OS [even if it was their favorite distro] would be a VERY bad thing...
Not as true as you might think. Yes, we *nix users believe in having options, but more than that we believe in having software that works the way WE want it to. If we had only one OS in the world, but it performed to our requirements, then you would hear little complaint...
The question is never really about which 2 systems are better, regardless of what those systems are. The question is behind the companies that produce them. So, regardless of their utilization, when making a comparison its really necessary to take a step further and evaluate the companies behind the code.
Lets examine this for a moment: programs like Apache, Firefox, Linux, OSX and the like ALL have their issues, that's true. If they did not, there would be little need for progressive versions of those programs. If you look at the companies/foundations behind those programs, you will see something vastly different than you would when you examine Microsoft.
Each of these organizations understands that bugs are an inherent nature of programming software. What differentiates them from the Microsoft camp is that proactive manner in which they approach them. They understand that today's "bullet-proof" system might become paper thin in a few years as technology and paradigms change. So, when creating their software, they don't try to reinvent the wheel, and adhere to standards that lessen the impact to their products when technology does change.
Microsoft, however, has a different and more arrogant perspective. Rather than do something according to agreed upon standards, they are forever wanting to do things their own way. This what leads to problems later on as technological changes occur.
In the case of the browser wars, Microsoft has earned the ire of those that choose to bash it. IE has not formally released a new version since 2001 (Don't quote me on that year, it may have been 2002. My memory is hazy). In terms of software, that's an eternity. Rather, they prefer to abandon the program so that they can focus on Longhorn, which in turn they will want to sell you at a hefty price tag.
Do you see the distinction here? People are not necessarily Microsoft bashers because the software they produce sucks. People bash Microsoft because as a company, they appear to care more about the bottom line of their pocketbooks rather than the customers that put the money there. The other aforementioned companies/foundations are interested in maintaining and improving the software they produce, whereas Microsoft appears to be more interested in making more software they can sell you, with improvements in reliability and security being secondary considerations.
If IE had continued to be developed and progressively improved, then yes your statement about IE being "not really as bad as it might seem" could POTENTIALLY be accurate. Had code base of IE been scrapped a few years ago in favor of a more standards compliant version, then your statement might very well be true.
I am a programmer, and have been a sysadmin previously. I have lived and breathed in the technology world for the better part of my life. In all that time, I have known quite a few peers who once believed what Microsoft was selling them. However, I don't know of a one today that stands firm behind that belief anymore. We don't bash Microsoft because it's fun, we bash them because they have earned it.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is what startles me. It comes to the point that you would lie to your parents and tell them Internet Explorer doesn't even exist, because you believe Firefox to be the superior browser.
Well, for the moment Firefox IS the superior browser if you look at things like security, standards compliance, etc. Would I lie to my techno-phobic parents and in-laws about the existence of a technology if it meant getting more peace and quiet at night? You're damn skippy....
Why is it wrong for Microsoft to create a monopoly, yet you won't even let them know that Internet Explorer does exist and is an alternative to Firefox as Firefox is an alternative to Internet Explorer.
So, just because Microsoft has created a monopoly, we as consumers are obligated to to adhere to it? The current failings of IE are pretty well known at this point, and MS's lack of action on the browser front pretty much begs for a better alternative.
Even the most hardcore Linux users would think a world with only one OS [even if it was their favorite distro] would be a VERY bad thing...
Not as true as you might think. Yes, we *nix users believe in having options, but more than that we believe in having software that works the way WE want it to. If we had only one OS in the world, but it performed to our requirements, then you would hear little complaint...
The question is never really about which 2 systems are better, regardless of what those systems are. The question is behind the companies that produce them. So, regardless of their utilization, when making a comparison its really necessary to take a step further and evaluate the companies behind the code. Lets examine this for a moment: programs like Apache, Firefox, Linux, OSX and the like ALL have their issues, that's true. If they did not, there would be little need for progressive versions of those programs. If you look at the companies/foundations behind those programs, you will see something vastly different than you would when you examine Microsoft. Each of these organizations understands that bugs are an inherent nature of programming software. What differentiates them from the Microsoft camp is that proactive manner in which they approach them. They understand that today's "bullet-proof" system might become paper thin in a few years as technology and paradigms change. So, when creating their software, they don't try to reinvent the wheel, and adhere to standards that lessen the impact to their products when technology does change. Microsoft, however, has a different and more arrogant perspective. Rather than do something according to agreed upon standards, they are forever wanting to do things their own way. This what leads to problems later on as technological changes occur. In the case of the browser wars, Microsoft has earned the ire of those that choose to bash it. IE has not formally released a new version since 2001 (Don't quote me on that year, it may have been 2002. My memory is hazy). In terms of software, that's an eternity. Rather, they prefer to abandon the program so that they can focus on Longhorn, which in turn they will want to sell you at a hefty price tag. Do you see the distinction here? People are not necessarily Microsoft bashers because the software they produce sucks. People bash Microsoft because as a company, they appear to care more about the bottom line of their pocketbooks rather than the customers that put the money there. The other aforementioned companies/foundations are interested in maintaining and improving the software they produce, whereas Microsoft appears to be more interested in making more software they can sell you, with improvements in reliability and security being secondary considerations. If IE had continued to be developed and progressively improved, then yes your statement about IE being "not really as bad as it might seem" could POTENTIALLY be accurate. Had code base of IE been scrapped a few years ago in favor of a more standards compliant version, then your statement might very well be true. I am a programmer, and have been a sysadmin previously. I have lived and breathed in the technology world for the better part of my life. In all that time, I have known quite a few peers who once believed what Microsoft was selling them. However, I don't know of a one today that stands firm behind that belief anymore. We don't bash Microsoft because it's fun, we bash them because they have earned it.